§ "On making a protection order the Secretary of State shall make up a register of all owners of land to which pertains a right to fish for freshwater fish in any inland area to which the protection order applies, and of any occupier of such right, who did not apply in writing to the Secretary of State, in relation to the improvement of, or the giving of access to, fishings; and may specify for such fishings as so registered the circumstances in which fishing is made available in respect of the matters listed in section 1(4) of this Act.".—[Mr. David Steel.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. David SteelI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ The clause requires the Secretary of State to make up a register of all the persons who occupy the right to fish within a protection area, and to define the terms and conditions under which fishing within the areas in which the owners have not co-operated shall be made open to the public.
§ This is the third time that I have sought an accommodation with the Government on this issue. I am in a charitable mood tonight and I hope that I shall be able to withdraw the clause, provided that the Under-Secretary of State is able to give us some indication of the meetings which he has had since Committee. I hope to be able to withdraw provided that the hon. Gentleman is able to give us some indication of the course he intends to take.
§ In my view, the Bill suffers seriously—this is on the basis of accepting the 1192 principle of protection orders—from a fundamental gap. In a given area in which a protection order is granted by the Government, there may well be a stretch of river where the owners have not co-operated in giving the public access. That is how the Bill stands, and it is wrong. That is not merely my personal opinion. It is a view that is held strongly by all the angling clubs in my constituency, which have asked me to press this matter once again. The new clause differs in some respects from the amendments that I moved in Committee, but it has the same effect.
§ I assume that the Under-Secretary of State has had discussions with the Scottish Anglers' Association since Committee. I should be surprised if it had not pressed this point upon him. Perhaps he will enlighten us. Perhaps he will tell us whether this is only a peculiar Borders concern. I should find that difficult to believe, because this issue applies everywhere in Scotland.
§ I notice that in the second half of Government Amendment No. 14 there is a tentative step to deal with the proprietors of fishing rights who do not cooperate in the framing of protection orders. I do not think that the amendment goes anywhere near far enough. It may be that the Minister will be able to tell us something about that.
§ Unless the clause or something like it is carried, three bad effects will flow from leaving the Bill as it stands. First, in making a protection order we shall be conferring a direct financial benefit in return for no obligation. I dwelt at length on this matter in Committee, and I shall not rehearse my arguments in full.
§
It was interesting that in Committee the Under-Secretary more or less conceded the point I was making. He said:
I confess immediately that on the face of it there seems to be an inherent injustice in giving protection to all owners without exception. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) makes the point quite clearly and properly that we are by this legislation conferring, as some people would have it, protection and benefits on people who are under no obligation to improve, or even to make available, the fishing rights which they own either to angling clubs or to members of the public. I accept that.
§
He then said:
It is perhaps not so much a weakness as one of the inevitable things that flow from
1193
not requiring, as one of the hon. Gentlemen s amendments does, all owners to be part of a scheme."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 5th January 1976; c. 31.]
§ It is a weakness of the Bill that its provisions do not require owners to be part of the scheme. We are conferring a direct benefit on a private owner or individual in return for no obligation. It is an extraordinary thing to do, and it is even more extraordinary for a Labour Government.
§ A further benefit is conferred upon these people by the rest of the community as a result of these provisions. I am referring to what I hope will happen after protection orders are made—namely, that management and restocking of rivers will take place on a more comprehensive scale. Indeed, this is one of the purposes of the exercise. If that happens within a protection area, the clubs and the private owners involved in the stocking of rivers will be adding to the ownership and benefits of the individual who takes no part in that protection procedure. That individual will receive a great benefit as a result of the hard work of other people and their financial contributions.
§ Most of the financing of the restocking of rivers will come from people who are interested in fishing. Fish do not remain in one area of a river but swim down to the areas which riparian owners in syndicates let out to fishermen, and those owners will receive great benefit from such operations. There is nothing anybody can do about that situation.
§ A further defect lies in the sheer administrative task related to the warders operating in a river area. Obviously there will be an administrative gap in areas to which protection orders apply and where no access is allowed. That will cause confusion for the public and will make policing difficult.
§ In Committee the Minister said that the Secretary of State would judge whether access within a given area was sufficient—in other words, if the Government adjudged the access to be insufficient, they would make an order. But that surely defeats the objective of the Bill. What happens where the great majority of owners and angling clubs in a given area are keen to use the provisions of the Bill and wish to have a protection 1194 order? We must consider the financial benefit conferred and also, alternatively, the right of veto on the part of an obstinate private owner.
§ I am sorry if the Minister feels that I am being over-persistent, but I feel very strongly about this matter. The Government's present attitude appears to make no sense either economically or socially. I hope that the Minister will undertake to have the matter examined in the other place. If he does not give assurance in that respect, I am afraid that I shall have to press the matter to a Division.
§ Mr. BuchanI hope to be brief. I must say in advance that I wish that I had been more closely involved in the discussions on the Bill. However, I left the matter in the good hands of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).
One aspect of the matter had escaped my notice. I thought that the provisions simpliciter gave access in return for protection. However, I now understand that that is not the case. I thought that access was part of the original deal. I believe that the lack of access is certainly an argument against the provisions. It seemed sensible that protection should be afforded in return for access to certain areas. Since that is not the case, I feel that I shall have to be a little tougher in my attitude. I can only plead ignorance that I did not appreciate the situation earlier.
It is surely wrong that in an area to which protection is given certain proprietors should be able to stay outside access orders. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said that individuals whose fishing areas were already sufficiently remunerative would gain by protection orders. It is those people who will be able, if they wish, to remain outside the Bill. It appears that a kind of double assistance is being afforded to those owners.
I thought that a further reason for seeking to bring protection orders to bear was that they would lead to control and to sensible management in the areas concerned. We must remember that if owners refuse access, that refusal will deprive fishermen of any advantages of opening up the use of water in those areas.
1195 I had thought that access would automatically follow the granting of protection. We must not lose sight of the main purpose of the Bill—namely, the improvement of the present situation. However, if we do not receive assurances from the Minister, I shall be tempted to vote for the new clause. I am disappointed to discover the situation in regard to lack of access.
One of the great problems in Scotland in considering questions of land use and leisure use planning is to know exactly who owns what. A register would allow us to make a start on that important exercise. It is a painful job to discover where all the riparian owners operate. It would have been a great step forward if we had been able to have a register of riparian owners.
For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will be willing to accept the concept of access and protection as well as the suggested register. I realise that perhaps the wording of the clause is not correct, and we all know that it is difficult for Back Benchers to get drafting exactly right. However, if my hon. Friend the Minister accepts the principle behind the clause, I am sure that the drafting can be put right in the other place.
§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Edinburgh, West)I do not wish to repeat the arguments we had in Committee, but the Law Society of Scotland feels strongly that the subject of access should be dealt with fully and clearly in this Bill. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again and give an assurance that it will be fully considered in another place.
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ Mr. CanavanI have a great deal of sympathy with the motives behind this proposal. Registration was mentioned in the Hunter Report and I do not know why the Government have decided not to incorporate it into the Bill.
I understand that the new clause is aimed at closing one of the loopholes in the Bill—that an owner or occupier of rights within a protected area can benefit indirectly from protection, yet not provide access. Such an owner could opt out and say that his patch would not come within the protection order. He could refuse to co-operate with proposals submitted to the Secretary of State by 1196 the owners of adjoining land. This could cause all sorts of anomalies. Some people might want to keep a stretch of water to themselves for purely selfish reasons.
The Secretary of State's preference for whole river basins to be incorporated in a protection order would be of great benefit, but it will not necessarily be achieved by voluntary means. One landowner might prevent it. Let us suppose that there are four points on a stretch of river—A, B, C and D. The stretches A to B and C to D may be covered by protection orders, but the owner of the fishing rights between B and C could refuse to co-operate. He would benefit indirectly from the order, yet would provide no access except for himself and his friends or a syndicate.
§ The new clause would ensure that access was given in return for the benefits of protection. However, I wonder why the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) stopped at registration within protected areas. There would be great advantage in having a register of all fishing interests. We might find that the alleged owners and occupiers of fishing rights did not own them at all, or did not have any legal proof of ownership. If there were no proof, or if ownership were based on ancestral mythology, the rights should be owned and administered by a public body. This could be a beneficial side effect of incorporating registration into the Bill.
§ What happens to those who fail to register? Under the new clause, the onus would be on the Secretary of State to prepare the register. I would rather see the onus put on those who claim to own or occupy rights. These matters could be considered by the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said, it will be difficult to change the Bill in the House of Lords. There are even more landed gentry with fishing interests in another place than there are in this House. Nevertheless, if the Minister will at least promise to consider incorporating registration into the Bill, I shall be most grateful.
§ Mr. MonroI have much sympathy with this new clause, though we are, perhaps inadvertently, falling into a trap over the definition of freshwater fish. I do not believe that we can have a register of fishing throughout the length of a river 1197 without including salmon fishing. The two must eventually go hand in hand and we cannot legislate, as is proposed in the Bill, solely for a minimal amount of trout fishing.
Surely the Secretary of State must know the owners of the land and who will be affected by protection orders before deciding under Schedule 1 to make an order. Even more important, the Secretary of State, perhaps through some mystical committee, will appoint the now virtually powerless warden. The warden must know who owns what before he can carry out his duties. If he does not know who owns the land, he cannot carry out his duties.
Whether we have a formal register open to inspection by the public, or whether the committee which supervises the warden has a list of the owners of all the fishing in the protected area, does not matter, but there must be a list, otherwise the warden cannot carry out his duties. The least the Under-Secretary should do is to agree to re-examine this matter, which has been effectively ventilated by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). The other place will have a great deal of tidying up to do and it could well start with this issue.
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownYou were not present, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said that this was the third occasion on which we had discussed this issue. Perhaps that is a reflection on the Chair for accepting the new clause—but that is not for me. We have heard all the arguments before. Nothing new has been said, and I do not look forward with great joy to what I have to say for the third time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) admitted that he had not studied the Bill. As has been explained in great detail, the Bill is based on a voluntary concept. It is because the Bill is based on a voluntary approach by those who seek a protection order that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles has, fairly and constructively, suggested ways of compelling a recalcitrant or indifferent landowner at least to give information. We have considered this aspect and have gone as far as possible in a later amend- 1198 ment, bearing in mind the weakness of the voluntary approach and conceding the desirability of accomplishing what the hon. Gentleman seeks to accomplish in his clause.
§ Mr. BuchanI understand the voluntary aspect to be that a person who owns a stretch of water can receive State protection by agreeing to a scheme of access. The difficulty is that this is done on an area basis. A person, either directly or indirectly, is getting protection within his area although he may not be offering access to his stretch. There is a State element of compulsion for the protection but not a return element of compulsion for the access. We are dealing with the matter not on a voluntary /voluntary basis, but on a compulsory/voluntary basis, and we have it the wrong way round.
§ Mr. BrownI do not want to get into a long philosophical argument. We discussed this at length in Committee. The safeguard is that if there is any sizeable stretch of water where the owner is not co-operating there will be no protection to that whole area. There is no other way of putting on the pressure. I agree that we have no evidence of what kind of landlord would not be interested in coming into an area and co-operating in seeking a protection order. I know that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles faces special difficulties. I am sure that in his area there are Liberal landowners, Tory landowners and now SNP landowners.
§ Mr. David SteelColin Tennant?
§ Mr. BrownSo far as I know, Colin Tennant is not an agricultural worker.
I recognise what the hon. Member is after. I think that we have gone as far as we can, bearing in mind the limitations and weaknesses of the voluntary system. Perhaps that can be made clearer on Amendment No. 14.
I would encourage a gentle bit of blackmail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] My hon. Friends must accept that in certain rivers where clubs are operating and stocking or improving the management, there is nothing to stop the landowner taking advantage of the benefits of what has been put into the river. I hope that hon. Members will not say that the Bill is a landlords' charter when that 1199 happens at the moment. We might be making too much of this, and I hope we are, but I concede that it would be easier administratively for anglers to know that a whole stretch was covered.
I take the point, but I think that we have gone as far as we can. The Secretary of State will be able to require that information, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should enable someone to say "No, you can go and get stuffed?" Will we follow that up with all the paraphernalia—[Interruption.] I am not being over-critical. I am giving the blanket assurance that, if there is the slightest doubt about an application for a protection order when large areas are owned by people who are not co-operating, the answer is not to give a protection order and so apply the maximum pressure on a difficult person.
§ Mr. David SteelPerhaps I do not become any more persuasive on third hearing, but the Minister's replies do not become more convincing. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) asked why I provided for a register only in protection areas. I have no objection to a much wider register than that, but I was phrasing the new clause within the limited philosophy of the Bill.
I was interested that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) thought that any register should include salmon fishings. To be logical, he should have supported my previous new clause, because that would be a useful further development. My proposal is modest—merely that, when the protection orders are being made, a register should be drawn up of those with fishing rights in the area.
8.45 p.m.
I must confess, if one is allowed to confess these things, that the idea of a register was purely a device. It is very difficult to get discussion of a subject on Report unless one can think of a new method of achieving the same object. A register was not discussed in Committee, though one does not know the reason. That is why this new clause was fortunate to be selected.
In Committee, rather than go into the complication of a register, I was suggesting an even more limited amendment. For the benefit of hon. Members who 1200 were not on the Committee, may I explain that I was proposing to say that, when an inquiry was being held into the possibility of creating a protection order, the Secretary of State should issue notices to all persons who had fishing rights within the proposed area, and that if someone chose not to turn up he should be aware that the Secretary of State would have power to impose conditions of access on a particular stretch of water. The Under-Secretary would not accept even that more limited proposal.
I did not and still cannot fathom why, for some metaphysical reason, the Government insist on the value of this voluntary approach. The Under-Secretary of State has spoken of the weakness of the voluntary approach. If he were to say "We are going to take power over the recalcitrant landlord", who would object? Certainly, it would not be the anglers of Scotland. They would not say that this was a wicked intervention by the Government into their affairs. The angling clubs will not object; and other owners will not object, for the reason I have given. They will not welcome participating and contributing to the running of a protection area while others—and perhaps only one individual—have no part in it but reap all the benefits.
As the Bill stands, it confers on one individual either a material benefit or a right of veto of the whole concept. Only one person owning a stretch of river could nullify the whole purpose of the Bill. I cannot understand why the Government insist on maintaining this basic defect in the Bill. Since the only concession made by the Under-Secretary of State is to say that the Secretary of State can call for information from such an individual, which is not much of a concession, and since he was not able to give any hope that the matter would be considered in another place, it is right for me to ask the House to divide in support of my New Clause 5.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read Second time.
§ Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division—
§ Mr. Buchan (seated and covered)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 1201 Are we in the position of having carried the clause but reversing the position by saying the clause may not be added to the Bill? Is not this bringing Parliament into disrepute?
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. CanavanOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just before the Division was called it was quite clear that this clause had been unanimously passed by the House. On the Question being put "That the new clause be read a Second time", there was a clear shout of "Aye" and no shout of "No". Then the House was asked whether the new clause should be added to the Bill. Unfortunately, that proposal has been defeated
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)That could happen. I understand that that might be the position.
§ The House having divided: Ayes, 20, Noes, 118.
1201| Division No. 77.] | AYES | 8.49 p.m. |
| Bain, Mrs Margaret | Hunter, Adam | Watt, Hamish |
| Buchan, Norman | Lambie, David | Welsh, Andrew |
| Canavan, Dennis | MacCormick, Iain | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) |
| Crawford, Douglas | Penhaligon, David | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Cryer, Bob | Reid, George | |
| Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) | Skinner, Dennis | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Freud, Clement | Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) | Mr. David Steel and |
| Henderson, Douglas | Thompson, George | Mr. A. J. Beith. |
| NOES | ||
| Armstrong, Ernest | Hart, Rt Hon Judith | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Ashton, Joe | Hooley, Frank | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Rodgers, George (Chorley) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Rose, Paul B. |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Irving, Rt Hon S. (Darttord) | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C) |
| Buchanan, Richard | Jeger, Mrs Lena | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch) |
| Campbell, Ian | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Silverman, Julius |
| Cant, R. B. | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Small, William |
| Carmichael, Neil | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Judd, Frank | Spearing, Nigel |
| Cohen, Stanley | Kerr, Russell | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Coleman, Donald | Lamond, James | Stallard, A. W. |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Lee, John | Stott, Roger |
| Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough) | Strang, Gavin |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) | Mabon, Dr J. Dickson | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) |
| Dalyell, Tam | McCartney, Hugh | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Deakins, Eric | McElhone, Frank | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Tinn, James |
| Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | Mackenzie, Gregor | Urwin, T. W. |
| Dempsey, James | Mackintosh, John P. | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Dormand, J. D. | Maclennan, Robert | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Dunnett, Jack | Madden, Max | Ward, Michael |
| Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Magee, Bryan | Watkins, David |
| Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Marks, Kenneth | Weetch, Ken |
| English, Michael | Marquand, David | Wellbeloved, James |
| Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | White, James (Pollock) |
| Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Whitlock, William |
| Flannery, Martin | Maynard, Miss Joan | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Millan, Bruce | Woodall, Alec |
| Ford, Ben | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Woof, Robert |
| Forrester, John | Moyle, Roland | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King | |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Newens, Stanley | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Oakes Gordon | Mr. David Stoddart and |
| Hardy, Peter | Park, George | Mr. Joseph Harper. |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Parry, Robert |
§ in the Division. The situation is that a new clause, clearly approved by the House, has not been included in the Bill. Is it in order to bring the situation to the attention of the Government so that they may include the proposal in the Bill at a later stage?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI think that the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the clause has not been added to the Bill.